From: Toledo, Ohio
Ok, here’s some of the things we are looking at for Da Big Babes. Keep in mind, that all the boys and girls have to play in a multi-dimensional space. Gotta start somewhere, so I picked LC as the stake in the ground.
Any “squad”, loads 1x in Troop
Lt “equip”, <5 LC, loads 1x in Troop
Med “equip”, 5 to 8 LC, loads 2x in Cargo
Hy “equip”, >8 LC, loads 3x in Cargo
Any “Veh” or “AFV”, loads 3x in Cargo
“Equip” is any Army Weapon, Radar, AA Gun. “Squad” is any Squad or Engineer, but note, Eng Vehicle is a Vehicle.
As you know, you need 1 Sup device for each combat device. Just as an example, this gets weird when the combat devices are individual AAMGs – require way too much Sup in the aggregate. Da Babes consolidates these into AAMG ‘teams’, with 2 or more ‘guns’ per team. For firepower and LC values, we multiply the basic 1x numbers with the square root of the number of ‘guns’ per team. Multiplying by the sqrt FP reflects that not all guns can get into action. Multiplying by the sqrt LC allows further tweaking.
In stock, if a unit had 30 x 0.50in M2HB AAMGs, it would have a LC of 60 (30x2). It requires 30 Sup, which has LC of 240 (30x8), for LC (and troop count) of 300 total, representing 60 devices. If you ‘team’ them into pairs, unit would have a LC of 45 (15x3) and require only 15 Sup which may now be increased in size to 12, giving a LC of 180 (15x12), for a total LC (and troop count) of 225 representing 30 devices. It is very hard to determine ‘team’ size for these smaller weapons, because of the “equip” break point at LC=5. The difference between troop LC and cargo LC is subtle, but very real.
This also has an impact on the ‘types’ of things that get whacked in the hit/kill algorithm. Obviously, the more of a ‘device’ you have, the more often it gets selected. If you have a disproportionate number of Sup squads, based on the number of supporting weapon devices, guess what gets whacked the hardest. 500 Sup squads vs 308 Inf squads will put 5/8 of casualties in the non-combat units, and 3/8 in the infantry. Anything that reduces the relative proportions is a good thing.
Going up to division scale, Da Big Babes applies this philosophy to everything – US, Japan, Commonwealth, Dutch – requiring a four way recursive, that results in a more representative LC (squad/crew size) for the individual devices and the proportionality between them.
As to Sup v MotSup, this is nothing more than a means to differentiate loadability. Sup and MotSup do the same thing, but MotSup loads harder. That’s the only difference. Back in the dawn of time, we did a proportionality analysis for all the combatants. Da Big Babes returns to that proportionality conclusion.
First let me say I have no idea as far as some of the nuances of the inner workings of the game. I was just wondering about how things are coded into the LCU TO&E. We see squads and devices and the loading routines etc are based on that model. That said it is dissecting units in a way that is very disconnected to the RL model. AE is a strategic game and it seems odd to be looking at things under such a microscope as such.
For example, a US infantry BTN would be made up of three Rifle Co and a Weapons Co. Each Rifle Co had three infantry platoons plus a 0.30 MG and 3 60 mm Mortar. SO I guess the question is why do we see squads as the AE base unti where platoons or even companies would be a much better unit of measure? I understand that this is hard coded and likely a permanent part of the system but it just seems a strategic game would be much better to see an Inf Btn TO&E look something like: 9x Inf PLT, 3x 81 mm Mortar, 3 x 0.5 mg, plus support
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry